Friday, August 02, 2013

It is now a "human right" in Australia for women to be paid more than men

I suppose this was inevitable, given the way that liberalism works, but it still makes me angry.

An Australian company has decided to pay its female employees a higher rate of superannuation than its male employees and this has been approved by the Australian Human Rights Commission.

So the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is now officially dead in Australia. That principle was never the real goal anyway. What liberalism wants is for sex distinctions not to matter. Therefore, if women end up getting less money because they spend less time at work, the liberal mind concludes that women must get paid more to make up the difference.

A saner society would do whatever it could to promote men's efforts to be providers for their families, rather than cutting away at the role. That's one way in which this measure won't help women in the long run. It will only further diminish the motivation of men to be breadwinners.

A saner society would also consider people as they really are - as members of families rather than as atomised individuals. If a woman marries and has children and decides to cut back her work hours, whilst her husband increases his, then it is true that the husband will retire with more superannuation. Does this leave the woman in the lurch? No, because the husband's superannuation is not to support himself alone but will be combined with that of his wife to form a joint retirement income.

The problem with artificially bolstering a woman's superannuation is that it means that men offer less in comparison through their own efforts at work. The social role of men within a marriage is then artificially impeded - the very opposite of what should be aimed at.

I'm afraid we are going to see more of this kind of thing. I would encourage young men not to let this demoralise them. It is still important to put yourself in a good position to support a family through your work.

There is a much better response than passively yielding. And that is to really stick it up the noses of liberals by "rewinding the tape" when it comes to family roles. Be like a patriarch of old. Outcompete women at work regardless of attempts to advantage women (you'll almost certainly win out in the long run). Build good relationships with your children and instil in them traditional values. Be a source of moral instruction and worldly wisdom. Model masculinity for your sons and a healthy marital relationship for your children. Lead your children to the qualities and characteristics that will help them marry successfully. Be a source of strength for your wife.

And have the strength to take responsibility not only for yourself and your own family but for the larger community and your own historic tradition. Don't leave society to the ideologues and the magnates. Work together with other responsible men to help actively shape the society you inhabit, including its values and principles.

Take on liberalism by becoming something superior to it in your own life. People should come to think of traditional men as being self-confident, strong and unyielding.

23 comments:

This is off-topic, but I thought you might be interested to read this article, in which Archbishop Desmond Tutu declares that if he had to pick between liberalism and Christianity, he'd pick liberalism:

That's interesting. I actually think you're right that he's putting the logic of liberalism first. He said this:

“Can you imagine me having said it’s unjust to penalise something they cannot do anything about, their race or gender, and then to keep quiet when people are hounded, people are killed, because of their sexual orientation?” Archbishop Tutu, a Nobel Prize winner pondered.

“I think it’s as utterly unjust as racism ever was."

He's discussing justice from within a liberal framework, i.e. his focus is on the injustice of predetermined qualities, such as our race or our sex, limiting or restricting us in some way, so that what matters is making these qualities not matter or forbidding any kind of discrimination on the basis of these qualities.

His focus is not on how race or gender or sexuality are part of our created nature, or of how it shapes our identity or provides a social context for our relationships and our pursuit of the good.

And, yes, he makes it clear that if God was not a liberal he would rather go to hell.

It demonstrates, I'm afraid, the power of the liberal moral imagination even over some of those who profess to be Christian.

That's because it seems to them like a better version of Christianity.

That is, liberal ideas are seen as a useful corrective in terms of improving Christianity or making it better, making it more pure, more consistent with its ideals (or what liberalism thinks its ideals are) and so on. Ultimately, liberalism is the arbiter and not Christianity, but the idea is that liberalism can make Christianity better.

Women being paid more will end up doing nothing more that ensuring even more bitterness and hostility. I neither trust or care for women these days to tell the truth. They are becoming the enemy of men.

Well my biggest fear as a single woman is dying in poverty. Even if I got married there is no guarantee that when I am middle aged my husband wont leave me for a younger woman...or man... Thanks to no fault divorce.

I didn't have to read the article to guess that this would be justified as some form of restitution for women. The joke is on the West, because feminism will never be satisfied with this kind of 'restitutive action' until women are completely dominant in all areas of life. The well-being of family and society as a whole is simply not their concern.

I disagree. It shouldn't be us who get demoralised and drop out. We should be the ones who are indefatigable and who outlast and outplay our opponents. Let liberalism devour liberals whilst we remain strong.

As I wrote earlier, the best revenge is to confound liberals by "rewinding the tape" - by acting as if liberalism had never existed and reasserting a full complement of masculine values and virtues.

We need to model a self-confident, traditional masculinity and we then need to learn to work together within a larger movement.

The enemy is like a woman, weak in face of opposition, but correspondingly strong when not opposed. In a quarrel with a man, it is natural for a woman to lose heart and run away when he faces up to her; on the other hand, if the man begins to be afraid and to give ground, her rage, vindictiveness and fury overflow and know no limit.

On the contrary, it is the men who do NOT drop out who are demoralized and lacking in confidence. They'd rather be a slave in a cubicle than a free man. They are willing to accept the women who have let countless other men plunder their virtue (marrying such a creature is pretty much the ultimate demonstration of lower value).

You will not outlast your opponents by continuing to sustain their system with your work and your tax dollars. You must starve the beast.

It is hard to see how you will act like liberalism doesn't exist, and assert masculine values, when the court system penalizes and criminalizes both those things.

The liberal world is like a casino. It is rigged against you, and the house always wins. The only way to beat it is not to play.

Does it not occur to you, "Rob", that if every Australian male took your advice and stayed single, our society would be even more awash with Mohammedans and other philoprogenitive Third World charmers than it already is?

Liberals have shown themselves to be more than ready to leave behind a section of the native population and to replace them with immigrants.

If some men opt out by not marrying there will be plenty from overseas to take their place.

And even if the replacements weren't there, it's unlikely that it would make much of a difference.

Feminism has left a number of generations of upper middle-class women without enough men to marry; what seems to happen is that a couple of generations of women miss out, then there's a backlash, but then the whole process starts over again.

You can see it now with uni educated women. There just aren't enough male peers for them to marry. Does that mean that these women reconsider their feminism? Do the powers that be lay awake at night worrying about these women?

The answer for now is no. There are a few flippant suggestions thrown around by a few people but that's about as far as the concern goes.

The liberal types won along time ago, it's just the transition phase is taking along time so it is very painful to watch and experience. In a hundred years western males won't see anything wrong with this crap, the social reprogramming is accelerating and can't be stopped short of a gun. Democracy doesn't work.

Does it not occur to you, "Rob", that if every Australian male took your advice and stayed single, our society would be even more awash with Mohammedans and other philoprogenitive Third World charmers than it already is?Seems to be a bit of liberal/homosexual cynical propaganda that snuck into the MRA community.Men should dismiss any calls to "not breed" as a personal threat.

What Rob seems not to have discerned is that we already have a textbook example of a continent where a large minority of white middle-class and upper-class males refuses to breed (quite apart from the perverts), and where an actual majority of white middle-class and upper-class heterosexual couples is also refusing to breed at anything like replacement level (when it breeds at all).

That continent is called "Europe".

Europe is already operating according to the plan that you are trying to urge on the rest of us.

And we know (well, we know, Rob, even if you don't) that the most popular given name for newborn European boys in 2013 is Mohammed.

Is that really what you want, Rob? Because that's what you're going to get in practice, Rob, if you continue prioritizing your own selfish appetites above your obligations to Christian society as a whole.

I have mentioned before in the comments on this website the obvious fact that "demography is destiny". And I make no apology for doing so again now.

Do yourself a favour, Rob, and go read the nightmare demographic figures given in Patrick J. Buchanan's The Death of the West.

It is especially inappropriate for a person who is a schoolteacher to pretend he is strong and independent. You are just as much a ward of the liberal state as a refugee on the dole, however much you wish to pretend otherwise.